It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Since atomic power was first harnessed more than 70 years ago, the industry has been trying to solve the problem of safe disposal of the waste. Japan has been thrown into the center of the conundrum by its decision in recent months to retire five reactors after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. It also decided this week to begin the restart process of one reactor despite public opposition.
“It’s part of the price of nuclear energy,” Allison Macfarlane, a former chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in an interview in Tokyo on atomic waste. “Now, especially with the decommissioning of sites, there will be more pressure to do something with this material. Because you have to.”
In the process, the world’s 437 operating reactors now produce about 12,000 tons of high-level waste a year, or the equivalent of 100 double-decker buses, according to the World Nuclear Association.
The U.S., with the most reactors, spent an estimated $15 billion on a site for nuclear refuse in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Local opposition derailed the plan, meaning about 49,000 tons of spent fuel sits in cooling pools at nuclear plants around the country.
In a recent interview with The Real News Network, Robert Alvarez, a nuclear policy specialist since 1975, reports that spent nuclear fuel in the United States comprises the largest concentration of radioactivity on the planet: 71,000 metric tons.
Worse, since the Yucca Mountain waste repository has been scrapped due to its proximity to active faults, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed reactor operators to store four times more waste in the spent fuel pools than they’re designed to handle.
Each Fukushima spent fuel pool holds about 100 metric tons, he says, while each US pool holds from 500-700 metric tons.
A single pool fire would release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity, rendering 17-22,000 square miles of area uninhabitable.
That’s about the size of New Hampshire and Vermont – from one pool fire.
World Nuclear Association
HLW is currently increasing by about 12,000 tonnes worldwide every year
It will need billions of dollars and technology not yet invented to clean up Fukushima. How long that will take is disputed. The operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., estimates 40 years. Greenpeace says it could take twice that time.
It will be a “failure in our ethical responsibility to future generations,” to restart reactors without a clear plan for waste storage, the Science Council of Japan said in April.
Japan’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization, known as NUMO, has been searching for a permanent storage site for years, initially inviting districts to apply as a host.
“We’d like all citizens to be aware and feel ownership of this situation,” said Takao Kino#a, a NUMO official. “We should feel grateful for the community that’s doing something for the benefit of the whole country and respect their bravery.”
NUMO’s plan for a final underground repository was drawn up in 2007 and would cost 3.5 trillion yen ($29 billion).
It would contain about 40,000 canisters, each weighing half a ton and holding waste at temperatures above 200 degrees Celsius (392 Fahrenheit). The contents would give off 1,500 sieverts of radiation an hour, a level that would instantly kill a human being.
The canisters need to cool in interim storage for as long as 50 years before heading 300 meters below ground. Their stainless steel inner layer is wrapped in bentonite clay to make sure water can’t leak inside.
Japan’s government is responsible for dealing with the most radioactive waste. The plant operator handles the rest.
“Even in the low-level category there is the relatively higher-level waste and the nation’s technical solutions are not ready,” Makoto Yagi, the president of Kansai Electric Power Co., said at a June briefing in Tokyo.
The plankton community and a key part of oceans, seas and freshwater basin ecosystems. Oxygen production: Phytoplankton absorb energy from the Sun and nutrients from the water to produce their own food. In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release molecular oxygen (O2) into the water. It is estimated that between 50% — 85% of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis.[15][16] The rest is produced via photosynthesis on land by plants.[16] Furthermore, phytoplankton photosynthesis has controlled the atmospheric CO2/O2 balance since the early Precambrian Eon.
Phytoplankton are photosynthesizing microscopic organisms that inhabit the upper sunlit layer of almost all oceans and bodies of fresh water. They are agents for "primary production," the creation of organic compounds from carbon dioxide dissolved in the water, a process that sustains the aquatic food web.[2] Phytoplankton obtain energy through the process of photosynthesis and must therefore live in the well-lit surface layer (termed the euphotic zone) of an ocean, sea, lake, or other body of water.
Phytoplankton account for half of all photosynthetic activity on Earth.[3][4] Their cumulative energy fixation in carbon compounds (primary production) is the basis for the vast majority of oceanic and also many freshwater food webs (chemosynthesis is a notable exception). The effects of anthropogenic warming on the global population of phytoplankton is an area of active research. Changes in the vertical stratification of the water column, the rate of temperature-dependent biological reactions, and the atmospheric supply of nutrients are expected to have important effects on future phytoplankton productivity.[5][6] Additionally, changes in the mortality of phytoplankton due to rates of zooplankton grazing may be significant. As a side note, one of the more remarkable food chains in the ocean – remarkable because of the small number of links – is that of phytoplankton-feeding krill (a crustacean similar to a tiny shrimp) feeding baleen whales.
TEPCO’s “third party” investigation of their actions during the initial disaster has landed them in more trouble. The report insinuated that the Japanese government, specifically the Prime Minister’s office had told TEPCO to not disclose the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi.
This report did not interview any members of the Prime Minister’s cabinet that were involved with the disaster response. Now both former PM Kan and his cabinet secretary Yukio Edano have told the press that they did not instruct TEPCO to censor their language to the press about the disaster.
The president of Tokyo Electric Power Co. during the Fukushima nuclear crisis told employees not to publicly use the term “meltdown,” apparently in response to government pressure, a third party report released Thursday said.
The report, compiled by three lawyers, said it is highly likely the government at the time pressured Masataka Shimizu, then Tepco’s president when the monstrous earthquake and tsunami disabled the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011, about the utility’s disclosures in the early stages of the crisis.
The report said someone in the government, then headed by Prime Minister Naoto Kan of the Democratic Party of Japan, was unhappy Tepco had revealed a photo of the blown-up building for reactor No. 1 on March 12 without telling the government in advance.
In February, nearly five years after the crisis, Tepco announced it should have declared the meltdowns earlier, citing the existence of a company manual that listed what constitutes a meltdown. The manual says that meltdown is a state in which 5 percent or more of the fuel rods is damaged.
As of March 14, 2011, Tepco estimated that 55 percent of the fuel rod assemblies in reactor No. 1 and 25 percent of those in reactor No. 3 were damaged but did not declare that they had melted until May that year.
Two comments appear beneath the article: “Incompetence at Japanese nuclear plants makes this a way bigger danger to humanity …”
The second was premonitory: "Maybe they forgot to tell everyone how they've determined there will never be any more earthquakes. Idiots are indeed correct. Likely long-term pain for short-term gain."
MOX, meaning "mixed oxides", is a highly dangerous and toxic fuel consisting of about 6-7% plutonium dioxide (obtained by re-treating used nuclear fuel) mixed with new depleted uranium dioxide. The fusion process starts more easily with MOX than with the usual fuels and it is used in 20 of the reactors in France.
When suspended in air, it is estimated that a dose of about 10mg can cause the death of someone who has only once breathed in plutonium oxide. Evidence shows that even a tiny dose will trigger tumors in the lungs, and what’s worse, a significant part of what is breathed in passes through the lungs into the blood, which then carries it into other organs (lymph nodes, liver, etc), more or less quickly depending on the size of the particles, thus causing further cancers.
Because of its isotropic composition it is able to contaminate considerable volumes of sea water for a century, which is equivalent to its half-life in the best circumstances, and in the worst for 240 centuries!
The worst of it is that at 784 MW, reactor 3 is 1.5 times more powerful than reactor 1 at 460 MW, which is fueled with enriched uranium, thus its load of fuel, ie, plutonium, is much greater and the heat caused if it is stopped would be very much more intense and harder to manage.